§ 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

Vance

Gyroplane CFI
Staff member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Messages
18,357
Location
Santa Maria, California
Aircraft
Givens Predator
Total Flight Time
2600+ in rotorcraft
From time to time I get a request to “sign off” a student pilot for solo flight.

Below are some important limitations that appear to elude some student pilots.

§ 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.

(a) General. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student has met the requirements of this section. The term “solo flight” as used in this subpart means that flight time during which a student pilot is the sole occupant of the aircraft or that flight time during which the student performs the duties of a pilot in command of a gas balloon or an airship requiring more than one pilot flight crewmember.

(b) Aeronautical knowledge. A student pilot must demonstrate satisfactory aeronautical knowledge on a knowledge test that meets the requirements of this paragraph:

(1) The test must address the student pilot's knowledge of—

(i) Applicable sections of parts 61 and 91 of this chapter;

(ii) Airspace rules and procedures for the airport where the solo flight will be performed; and

(iii) Flight characteristics and operational limitations for the make and model of aircraft to be flown.

(2) The student's authorized instructor must—

(i) Administer the test; and

(ii) At the conclusion of the test, review all incorrect answers with the student before authorizing that student to conduct a solo flight.

(c) Pre-solo flight training. Prior to conducting a solo flight, a student pilot must have:

(1) Received and logged flight training for the maneuvers and procedures of this section that are appropriate to the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(2) Demonstrated satisfactory proficiency and safety, as judged by an authorized instructor, on the maneuvers and procedures required by this section in the make and model of aircraft or similar make and model of aircraft to be flown.



(g) Maneuvers and procedures for pre-solo flight training in a gyroplane. A student pilot who is receiving training for a gyroplane rating or privileges must receive and log flight training for the following maneuvers and procedures:

(1) Proper flight preparation procedures, including preflight planning and preparation, powerplant operation, and aircraft systems;

(2) Taxiing or surface operations, including runups;

(3) Takeoffs and landings, including normal and crosswind;

(4) Straight and level flight, and turns in both directions;

(5) Climbs and climbing turns;

(6) Airport traffic patterns, including entry and departure procedures;

(7) Collision avoidance, windshear avoidance, and wake turbulence avoidance;

(8) Descents with and without turns;

(9) Flight at various airspeeds;

(10) Emergency procedures and equipment malfunctions;

(11) Ground reference maneuvers;

(12) Approaches to the landing area;

(13) High rates of descent with power on and with simulated power off, and recovery from those flight configurations;

(14) Go-arounds; and

(15) Simulated emergency procedures, including simulated power-off landings and simulated power failure during departures.



(n) Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in solo flight. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student pilot has received an endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor who gave the training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.

Limitations on flight instructors authorizing solo flight. No instructor may authorize a student pilot to perform a solo flight unless that instructor has—

(1) Given that student pilot training in the make and model of aircraft or a similar make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be flown;

(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;

(3) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(4) Endorsed the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown, and that endorsement remains current for solo flight privileges, provided an authorized instructor updates the student's logbook every 90 days thereafter.

Any solo sign off I do has specific wind limitations, cross wind limitations and is location specific.

It appears to me there are quite a few bent gyroplanes from student pilots not adhering to the limitations of § 61.87 Solo requirements for student pilots.
 
I generally apply the same rules to licensed pilots who are pursuing add-on ratings in a new category. Technically, they are not "student pilots" and therefore those regulations may not be binding on them, but they're a good idea for safety, so I do the written test, endorsements with limitations, etc. for everbody.
 
I generally apply the same rules to licensed pilots who are pursuing add-on ratings in a new category. Technically, they are not "student pilots" and therefore those regulations may not be binding on them, but they're a good idea for safety, so I do the written test, endorsements with limitations, etc. for everbody.
I feel a person with a pilot certificate that is working on earning a pilot certificate or endorsement for another category and/or class falls under the student requirements to solo.

In my opinion it would be unsafe to allow someone without a gyroplane certificate or endorsement to solo in a gyroplane without demonstrating proficiency to someone.

I have had this issue brought up with some of my learners and it has not been resolved to my satisfaction so I continue to sign them off for solo in a gyroplane.
 
I have had this issue brought up with some of my learners and it has not been resolved to my satisfaction so I continue to sign them off for solo in a gyroplane.
I believe it is not, technically, a "solo endorsement" but a PIC endorsement when a certificated pilot is learning a new category or class. I would put similar restrictions on a PIC endorsement that I put on a solo endorsement, INCLUDING and expiration....which technically wouldn't be required on a solo endorsement since it specifically states they are only valid for 90 days. A PIC endorsement has no such limitation so could, theoretically, be exercised for the life of the learner without an explicit expiration limitation being included.

Loren
 
It's a solo endorsement as I write it (typically initially for local supervised solo) because I don't want to endorse for PIC and thereby suggest that passenger carrying is authorized or intended. I include the supervision part because I don't want flights any old time the pilot might pick. It's the CFI's prerogative to set all the conditions until the rating is completed.

I know some people who think that solo flight is only for students (and that you shouldn't log solo, just PIC, after you have a license) but the regs say anytime you're alone in the aircraft, that's logable as solo. When I fly alone, the time goes in both solo and pic columns in my log. I have an awful lot of logged solo time because of that practice, and I enjoy keeping track of that figure. The difference between the columns reflects flying time with others on board.
 
It would appear to me that 61.31(d)(2) applies.

AC 61-65H gives the appropriate endorsement for a pilot to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(2):

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the training as required by § 61.31(d)(2) to serve as a pilot in command in a [specific category and class of aircraft]. I have determined that [he or she] is prepared to solo that [M/M] aircraft. Limitations: [optional]. /s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-1

Jim
 
Last edited:
P.S. for the benefit of insurers, club rules, etc., I sometimes will put a note in the learner's log before any given solo reading "Pre-flight planning reviewed and approved for solo flight today in _______ (aircraft and planned activity)". It's not an FAA requirement, but it matters to me as part of the supervision requirements I impose. I do this for local flights, not just x-country.

I also expect the pilot to select an objective for the flight (something to work on, not just flying aimlessly) and to debrief with me afterwards to see if the objective was met.
 
Last edited:
It would appear to me that 61.31(d)(2) applies.

AC 61-65H gives the appropriate endorsement for a pilot to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(2):

I certify that [First name, MI, Last name] has received the training as required by § 61.31(d)(2) to serve as a pilot in command in a [specific category and class of aircraft]. I have determined that [he or she] is prepared to solo that [M/M] aircraft. Limitations: [optional]. /s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-1

Jim
Yes, that is what I believe is the correct endorsement and covers acting as PIC in another cat/class limited to solo operations. I add the similar limitations that I'd add to a student solo (prior authorization by me, expiration date, etc.)

Loren
 
AC 61-65H gives the appropriate endorsement for a pilot to act as pilot in command of an aircraft in solo operations when the pilot does not hold an appropriate category/class rating: § 61.31(d)(2):
I consider the AC endorsements to be suggestions that serve as a safe harbor for those who do not want to compose their own, but not required wording under the regs. I am not shy about adapting the language to suit my preferences.
 
I consider the AC endorsements to be suggestions that serve as a safe harbor for those who do not want to compose their own, but not required wording under the regs. I am not shy about adapting the language to suit my preferences.
Agree. They're a good starting point but I consider them a basic minimum.
 
I consider the AC endorsements to be suggestions that serve as a safe harbor.......
For the non-attorneys among us, the verbiage contained in Appendix A of AC 61-65H ensures that we meet at least the minimum standard for acceptability in endorsing a pilot for a privilege.

In my time as an instructor, and as an examiner, I have read some real humdingers in logbooks. I caution instructors to be very careful about "freestyling" when endorsing a logbook unless, like you and Loren, they "know" the legal meaning of the words they write.

I concur in the idea that the instructor can add limitations and conditions as he feels prudent.

Jim
 
Last edited:
I fully support the idea that a particular CFI has the authority to refuse to give a particular trainee an endorsement they have requested.
The refusal can be for any reason so long as it's not discriminatory toward anyone in a "protected class."

What I REALLY have trouble with, is when CFI's search for "reasons to not" instead of "reasons to" when it comes to the regs. In my experience, many instructors have a tendency to exaggerate their inner beliefs of their own importance and start adding their own imaginary elements to what the regs require. The minimum acceptable standards put forth in black and white in the FAR's are in fact, acceptable standards.

Many marginal pilots who barely met standards when they started flying, have used their "licenses to learn" to go on to become stellar professionals. Local CFI's have to walk a fine line between being a "reasons not" and "reasons to" person, and promoting aviation instead of stifling it. It's already cumbersome, expensive, and hard enough.

BC
 
I fully support the idea that a particular CFI has the authority to refuse to give a particular trainee an endorsement they have requested.
The refusal can be for any reason so long as it's not discriminatory toward anyone in a "protected class."

What I REALLY have trouble with, is when CFI's search for "reasons to not" instead of "reasons to" when it comes to the regs. In my experience, many instructors have a tendency to exaggerate their inner beliefs of their own importance and start adding their own imaginary elements to what the regs require. The minimum acceptable standards put forth in black and white in the FAR's are in fact, acceptable standards.

Many marginal pilots who barely met standards when they started flying, have used their "licenses to learn" to go on to become stellar professionals. Local CFI's have to walk a fine line between being a "reasons not" and "reasons to" person, and promoting aviation instead of stifling it. It's already cumbersome, expensive, and hard enough.

BC
I always tell my students that my performance "standard" for solo flight is "consistently safe." Not perfection. Consistently SAFE. I further define "safe" as meaning that I am confident that they 1) Will not hurt themselves, and 2) They won't hurt the aircraft. Once that level of performance is achieved (and I have covered all the training items required by the regs), they will solo.

Loren
 
Top